Mailing List Archive

Ancient Greek Wikipedia
GerardM strongly feels the following,
an argument he has made countless times
as the reason the Ancient Greek Wikipedia
was cancelled (even after being approved
with the sole remaining condition of finishing
the interface translation):

>When you write in a dead language you will invariably start to
>use neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that they
>originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language as
>it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language...

>In contrast to historic languages neologisms are fine
>in constructed languages.

This, however, is a conceptual point that may not be
a good reason to deny a Wikipedia, and indeed many of us
do not feel it is, nor that it is even correct.

What is so terrible about neologisms?
What makes them so distasteful to you that you were willing
to go so far as to close down an approved project with some
highly educated and qualified people contributing to it?
Why, Gerard, must a Wikipedia represent a language exactly
as it was "at the time of its demise"? (Can you define,
exactly, the exact state of the "demise" of a classical
language like Greek?)

As previous posters have mentioned, Greek is still to this
very day a basic part of a classical education, and "creative
writing" in such a rich language is par for the course when
studying it. So are "neologisms" really so foreign to it?
And is it really completely "dead" for the purposes of an
encyclopedia?

On the contrary, I posit that the issue of neologisms has
nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of a
Wikimedia project. There is no reason not to have a project
with neologisms, and there are languages without neologisms
that may not be appropriate. That neologisms must be foreign
to Wikipedia language projects is Gerard's firm conviction,
but it is a value judgement like any other, and not shared
by many others. There is nothing objective about it.

On the contrary, *all* languages have adapted to the technical
needs of Wikipedia and even changed as a result. This includes
English itself and other major European languages. The English
of Wikipedia today is different than the English language of
2001 precisely because it has been used in a Wikipedia environment.

On a larger scale, I would like to know more about the language
committee and how it is appointed. It seems to have very dedicated
and highly qualified members. But from recent discussion it also
appears to be somewhat monolithic and might benefit from a greater
diversity of voices.

Dovi


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
The Wikimedia Foundation aims to bring knowledge to all people in the world.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." The best way to inform is by
using the mother tongue of people. There are languages where certain words
or concepts are not available and people either learn about the associated
subjects in another language or they add new words, new concepts to their
language.

As Milos wrote typically extinct and constructed languages are considered
together. What they have in common is that both are not optimal in bringing
knowledge to people. What they are good at is bringing knowledge about the
language itself. When you read a well written text about a subject, you are
informed about the subject and at the same time you learn the language and
you learn the words that are needed for that language.

As I have argued before, an extinct language that is of relevance only
because of its historic value should be confined to its vocabulary. When you
start to expand the meaning of words, when you start to add words to the
language it is no longer true to say that a text written with such
innovations helps you understand the original texts in that language. When
writing in ancient Greek is part of a course, then it is for your professor
to evaluate the text. Obviously it is an essential tool in learning a
language but it does not imply that it is of value to other people who are
studying ancient Greek.

When an extinct language is brought back from extinction, the technicla term
is re-constructed, it is essentially a different language. When you applied
for an ISO-639 code that says that the language is "Re-constructed Old
Greek" you make explicitly clear that even though it looks like Old Greek,
it is not.

This requirement for being precise about in what language a WMF project
exist for any language. When we cannot pin down what language it is exactly
that e will be expressed in a Wikipedia, we will not promote a project from
"discussion" to "eligible". We use the ISO-639-3 as a reference. You are
welcome to apply for a label for reconstructed Old Greek.

When you consider a language like Dutch, you will agree that it has evolved
over time. The language of Vondel is almost a different language and it is
not understood without considerable effort for native Dutch people. When
someone studied the language of Vondel and would write a Wikipedia article
in that language the article would be deleted. When you talk consider old
Greek, the language will have evolved over time and consequently the oldest
Greek is likely to be quite different from the latest original writing. I
can even argue that there is no singular old Greek, there are many. With a
living language you do know how to write because you are writing for the
living no such reference exists for an extinct language.

The arguments the language committee uses are clear. They are published and
they are objective. You may not like them, but they are the arguments we
use. When people have issues, the arguments have to be convincing to make a
difference.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> GerardM strongly feels the following,
> an argument he has made countless times
> as the reason the Ancient Greek Wikipedia
> was cancelled (even after being approved
> with the sole remaining condition of finishing
> the interface translation):
>
> >When you write in a dead language you will invariably start to
> >use neologisms or start to give a different meaning to a words that they
> >originally did not have. As a consequence you do not learn the language
> as
> >it was at the time of its demise. It is no longer that language...
>
> >In contrast to historic languages neologisms are fine
> >in constructed languages.
>
> This, however, is a conceptual point that may not be
> a good reason to deny a Wikipedia, and indeed many of us
> do not feel it is, nor that it is even correct.
>
> What is so terrible about neologisms?
> What makes them so distasteful to you that you were willing
> to go so far as to close down an approved project with some
> highly educated and qualified people contributing to it?
> Why, Gerard, must a Wikipedia represent a language exactly
> as it was "at the time of its demise"? (Can you define,
> exactly, the exact state of the "demise" of a classical
> language like Greek?)
>
> As previous posters have mentioned, Greek is still to this
> very day a basic part of a classical education, and "creative
> writing" in such a rich language is par for the course when
> studying it. So are "neologisms" really so foreign to it?
> And is it really completely "dead" for the purposes of an
> encyclopedia?
>
> On the contrary, I posit that the issue of neologisms has
> nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of a
> Wikimedia project. There is no reason not to have a project
> with neologisms, and there are languages without neologisms
> that may not be appropriate. That neologisms must be foreign
> to Wikipedia language projects is Gerard's firm conviction,
> but it is a value judgement like any other, and not shared
> by many others. There is nothing objective about it.
>
> On the contrary, *all* languages have adapted to the technical
> needs of Wikipedia and even changed as a result. This includes
> English itself and other major European languages. The English
> of Wikipedia today is different than the English language of
> 2001 precisely because it has been used in a Wikipedia environment.
>
> On a larger scale, I would like to know more about the language
> committee and how it is appointed. It seems to have very dedicated
> and highly qualified members. But from recent discussion it also
> appears to be somewhat monolithic and might benefit from a greater
> diversity of voices.
>
> Dovi
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
IMHO it's not a problem of neologisms but the problem is that using died
languages you miss the purpose of diffusion and divulgation of Wikipedia.

Why you write in Wikipedia? You write in Wikipedia because other people
can read your texts and your articles, because your aim is the
widespread of knowledge.

Perfect... an open project of Wikipedia *must* have got writers and
readers. Your aim is the communication and your mean is a wiki and for
this reason your communication is a *written* communication.

Using a died language probably you miss this aim because you don't have
readers: you write in Wikipedia in a died language only for you, for
your satisfaction.

You can have a small number of readers but, probably, if they must
choose an article in old Greek, for example, or in their own language,
they will choose the second one.

What Gerard is saying is that a language is a *living* language and this
language changes, it has an evolution. Using a died language you are
using an *artificial* language and not a live language because you
choose a version of this language (the Old Greek for example has
different koiné) and you probably translate articles. Not only you
translate but probably you can have a lot of discussions about the
translation because no one can decide the correct version because there
are not speakers... the *grammar becomes philology*.

IMHO the died languages cannot follow the aim of Wikipedia, but they can
be the source for other projects where the aim is strongly based on
translation. The aim is not the widespread of knowledge. In this project
the aim can be the *knowledge of translation*, here people can share
informations and discussions about the died languages used.

Ilario

Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> GerardM strongly feels the following,
> an argument he has made countless times
> as the reason the Ancient Greek Wikipedia
> was cancelled (even after being approved
> with the sole remaining condition of finishing
> the interface translation):
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I have argued before, an extinct language that is of relevance only
> because of its historic value should be confined to its vocabulary. When you
> start to expand the meaning of words, when you start to add words to the
> language it is no longer true to say that a text written with such
> innovations helps you understand the original texts in that language ...
>
> When an extinct language is brought back from extinction, the technicla term
> is re-constructed, it is essentially a different language ...

Gerard, I suppose the issue is what harm it would do to have an
Ancient Greek Wikipedia.

Latin is a dead language, but that didn't stop the educated classes
using it for thousands of years after the decline of the Roman empire,
and the same is true, although to a much lesser extent, with Ancient
Greek. It continues to be used to discuss and convey certain
philosophical and literary ideas. It is also changed to a degree to
allow it to be taught in schools. One problem with teaching it has
been that a great many of the original texts have been unappealing to
girls, because they're often about war and preparations for it, so
classicists teaching it have been modifying texts in an effort to
extend its appeal.

Languages continue to evolve even after "dying," if they're in any
kind of use, even minimally. I think if we were to follow your
argument, we would never be allowed to utter a single word of Latin or
Ancient Greek, because we don't know what the original pronunciations
were.

Sarah

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Latin is not a died language. It's the official language of Vatican.

The internal communication and the official documents of the Holy See
are in Latin.

It's also a spoken language.

Ilario

SlimVirgin wrote:
> Latin is a dead language, but that didn't stop the educated classes
> using it for thousands of years after the decline of the Roman empire,
> and the same is true, although to a much lesser extent, with Ancient
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
I do not presume we know how Dutch was pronounced at the time of Vondel
still Vondel is performed on stage. When the pronunciation is done in a way
that makes it better understood for a modern audience, it makes in many ways
for a better stage production.

When teachers write new texts to ease the learning curve, I expect that
still at the end the language is taught with a purpose. I expect that
languages like Latin and Old Greek are taught to teach about the origins of
a society. In the end, the new texts are a means to an end. In the end the
ancient texts and their relevance to our modern society is what is being
studied.

In my opinion, Ancient Greek is extinct, it evolved over time and
consequently there is no one way to write texts in this language. If people
want a Wikipedia in reconstructed Ancient Greek, they can apply for an
ISO-639 code and it will be considered like any other constructed language.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As I have argued before, an extinct language that is of relevance only
> > because of its historic value should be confined to its vocabulary.
> When you
> > start to expand the meaning of words, when you start to add words to
> the
> > language it is no longer true to say that a text written with such
> > innovations helps you understand the original texts in that language
> ...
> >
> > When an extinct language is brought back from extinction, the technicla
> term
> > is re-constructed, it is essentially a different language ...
>
> Gerard, I suppose the issue is what harm it would do to have an
> Ancient Greek Wikipedia.
>
> Latin is a dead language, but that didn't stop the educated classes
> using it for thousands of years after the decline of the Roman empire,
> and the same is true, although to a much lesser extent, with Ancient
> Greek. It continues to be used to discuss and convey certain
> philosophical and literary ideas. It is also changed to a degree to
> allow it to be taught in schools. One problem with teaching it has
> been that a great many of the original texts have been unappealing to
> girls, because they're often about war and preparations for it, so
> classicists teaching it have been modifying texts in an effort to
> extend its appeal.
>
> Languages continue to evolve even after "dying," if they're in any
> kind of use, even minimally. I think if we were to follow your
> argument, we would never be allowed to utter a single word of Latin or
> Ancient Greek, because we don't know what the original pronunciations
> were.
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> When teachers write new texts to ease the learning curve, I expect that
> still at the end the language is taught with a purpose. I expect that
> languages like Latin and Old Greek are taught to teach about the origins of
> a society. In the end, the new texts are a means to an end. In the end the
> ancient texts and their relevance to our modern society is what is being
> studied.

Yes, this is true. It is taught to keep it alive to some extent, so
that the concepts it conveys, and knowledge of Ancient Greece, don't
die. But no one would argue that it is being taught in anything like a
"pure" form, whatever that would mean. No one even knows whether
anyone from Ancient Greece would understand a single word that a
contemporary speaker uttered. So the idea that, as taught in schools
and universities, it is not already "reconstructed" to some degree is,
I would say, to misunderstand the way ancient languages are studied
and passed on.

Sarah

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Actually, any ancient language is a valid communication tool between
people who know that language. By accident, I am learning now Ancient
Greek and an information which I may get by reading an article about
Proxima Centaur would be valid to me as I read it in Serbian or
English or whichever language.

So, please, don't try to use wrong linguistic or semiotic arguments in
trying to rationalize your political positions. (It is not only
related to you personally.) There is no reasonable *scientific* reason
why to forbid Wikipedia in some *used* language to exist. The only way
in which you may to ask for the sense of working on such languages is
related to our capacities and (not yet defined) priorities; which I
described in a separate thread.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO it's not a problem of neologisms but the problem is that using died
> languages you miss the purpose of diffusion and divulgation of Wikipedia.
>
> Why you write in Wikipedia? You write in Wikipedia because other people
> can read your texts and your articles, because your aim is the
> widespread of knowledge.
>
> Perfect... an open project of Wikipedia *must* have got writers and
> readers. Your aim is the communication and your mean is a wiki and for
> this reason your communication is a *written* communication.
>
> Using a died language probably you miss this aim because you don't have
> readers: you write in Wikipedia in a died language only for you, for
> your satisfaction.
>
> You can have a small number of readers but, probably, if they must
> choose an article in old Greek, for example, or in their own language,
> they will choose the second one.
>
> What Gerard is saying is that a language is a *living* language and this
> language changes, it has an evolution. Using a died language you are
> using an *artificial* language and not a live language because you
> choose a version of this language (the Old Greek for example has
> different koiné) and you probably translate articles. Not only you
> translate but probably you can have a lot of discussions about the
> translation because no one can decide the correct version because there
> are not speakers... the *grammar becomes philology*.
>
> IMHO the died languages cannot follow the aim of Wikipedia, but they can
> be the source for other projects where the aim is strongly based on
> translation. The aim is not the widespread of knowledge. In this project
> the aim can be the *knowledge of translation*, here people can share
> informations and discussions about the died languages used.
>
> Ilario
>
>
> Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> > GerardM strongly feels the following,
> > an argument he has made countless times
> > as the reason the Ancient Greek Wikipedia
> > was cancelled (even after being approved
> > with the sole remaining condition of finishing
> > the interface translation):
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
No problem about your comment, it's completely true. The information in
Old Greek is valid than an information in English.

My question is different, the question doesn't investigate the validity
of Old Greek for the communication.

The problem is: why a person must write this information in Old Greek
instead of in his own language? No one has got Old Greek like mother tongue.

Probably that happens because it's a linguistic essay or because you
like to communicate in Old Greek as your language is not an "easy" language.

Closing: my position is not a political position but its' a *rational*
and *logical* vision.

Ilario

Milos Rancic wrote:
> Actually, any ancient language is a valid communication tool between
> people who know that language. By accident, I am learning now Ancient
> Greek and an information which I may get by reading an article about
> Proxima Centaur would be valid to me as I read it in Serbian or
> English or whichever language.
>
> So, please, don't try to use wrong linguistic or semiotic arguments in
> trying to rationalize your political positions. (It is not only
> related to you personally.) There is no reasonable *scientific* reason
> why to forbid Wikipedia in some *used* language to exist. The only way
> in which you may to ask for the sense of working on such languages is
> related to our capacities and (not yet defined) priorities; which I
> described in a separate thread.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Sorry for my additional information.

The comparison is not possible with a person who writes in English
instead of in his own language.

This choice is in respect with the purpose of Wikipedia: probably the
information written in English is more widespread than in other language
(my comparison is with the English, but someone can choose also French
or Spanish or Russian).

The choice of Old Greek can be acceptable if this choice is based on the
spreading of information but I don't think that there are so many Old
Greek readers.

Ilario

Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> No problem about your comment, it's completely true. The information in
> Old Greek is valid than an information in English.
>
> My question is different, the question doesn't investigate the validity
> of Old Greek for the communication.
>
> The problem is: why a person must write this information in Old Greek
> instead of in his own language? No one has got Old Greek like mother tongue.
>
> Probably that happens because it's a linguistic essay or because you
> like to communicate in Old Greek as your language is not an "easy" language.
>
> Closing: my position is not a political position but its' a *rational*
> and *logical* vision.
>
> Ilario
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
First, I don't support opening projects in ancient languages. The
reason is simple: We have a lot of more important job to do during
this century than to work on reviving of ancient languages. (And about
Wikisources: AFAIK, there is a multilingual one and this is the right
place for putting all sources in "other languages".)

Linguistic reasons are other issue. Any language may be used as a
lingua franca. It is especially true if one profession is closely
related to a particular language or languages, like classical
philology is related to Latin, Greek and Hebrew. While two classical
philologists from different parts of the world would have a problem
with reading an article full of neologisms about space flight or
computers in Ancient Greek or Classical Hebrew, it is almost
predictable that they would have less problems in communication in
Ancient Greek about literature, philosophy, but even about the most
concepts about one encyclopedia is: non-high-technological world
around us: Apple is fruit which has those characteristics; Newton was
a physicist who was born then, died then and lived in England...

Their usage of Ancient Greek is usage of a lingua franca. While the
most of people are using English as a lingua franca, some people feel
better if they use some other language. And how much classical
philologists are in the world? If there are just 100 in Serbia (but I
think that there are more) with 7M of inhabitants, we may approximate
that there are maybe even 50.000 classical philologists in the world.

And after that, there is a question: How many Sorbs (not Serbs, but
Lusatians) really need one of their two languages (Lower Sorbian and
Upper Sorbian) to learn anything? I am quite sure that the most of
them even have to learn Sorbian as a second language, not as a mother
tongue (for a lot of them mother tongue is German). In that sense,
Ancient Greek is more valid tool for communication than Sorbian; which
means -- more valid tool for spreading knowledge.

But, again. I think that developing Wikipedias in, for example,
Khoisan languages is much bigger priority than in Ancient Greek. Which
means that the first group should get unproportionally more resources
than the second one. Even it means that WMF donates to the development
of Khoisan literacy and that we don't have Ancient Greek Wikipedia.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for my additional information.
>
> The comparison is not possible with a person who writes in English
> instead of in his own language.
>
> This choice is in respect with the purpose of Wikipedia: probably the
> information written in English is more widespread than in other language
> (my comparison is with the English, but someone can choose also French
> or Spanish or Russian).
>
> The choice of Old Greek can be acceptable if this choice is based on the
> spreading of information but I don't think that there are so many Old
> Greek readers.
>
> Ilario
>
>
> Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> > No problem about your comment, it's completely true. The information in
> > Old Greek is valid than an information in English.
> >
> > My question is different, the question doesn't investigate the validity
> > of Old Greek for the communication.
> >
> > The problem is: why a person must write this information in Old Greek
> > instead of in his own language? No one has got Old Greek like mother tongue.
> >
> > Probably that happens because it's a linguistic essay or because you
> > like to communicate in Old Greek as your language is not an "easy" language.
> >
> > Closing: my position is not a political position but its' a *rational*
> > and *logical* vision.
> >
> > Ilario
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
I agree, but this "lingua franca" mast be a live "lingua franca".

Latin is it (for example), Ancient Greek isn't (or at least is not at
moment). Surely if there are some researchers which use Ancient Greek as
lingua franca a Wikipedia in this language is acceptable and *has a sense*.

IMHO some extinct languages can have more success in other project.
Surely Wikisource in Ancient Greek can be an important project bigger
than other living languages because main sources in philosophy (for
example) are Greek.

Ilario

Milos Rancic wrote:
> Linguistic reasons are other issue. Any language may be used as a
> lingua franca. It is especially true if one profession is closely
> related to a particular language or languages, like classical
> philology is related to Latin, Greek and Hebrew. While two classical
> philologists from different parts of the world would have a problem
> with reading an article full of neologisms about space flight or
> computers in Ancient Greek or Classical Hebrew, it is almost
> predictable that they would have less problems in communication in
> Ancient Greek about literature, philosophy, but even about the most
> concepts about one encyclopedia is: non-high-technological world
> around us: Apple is fruit which has those characteristics; Newton was
> a physicist who was born then, died then and lived in England...
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
It is obvious, that knowledge of Ancient Greek is not widespread (from a
global point of view). For example, nobody here on he list actually
knows much about the language and it's use today. People are uttering
their opinions, and those opinions are often very clear, not blurred by
too much knowledge. Therefore I invite everybody interested in the
Ancient Greek Wikipedia project and also everybody who just feels, that
the decisions of the language subcommittee are unjust, to collect
sourced data about the number of people who speak/learn/teach/write in
Ancient Greek and to collect modern works, which proof, that Ancient
Greek is no dead language, but actively used still today. I made a start
at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Greek>. Please feel free
to add to that page.

Marcus Buck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Sunday 13 April 2008 10:43:37 Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> Why you write in Wikipedia? You write in Wikipedia because other people
> can read your texts and your articles, because your aim is the
> widespread of knowledge.
>
> Perfect... an open project of Wikipedia *must* have got writers and
> readers. Your aim is the communication and your mean is a wiki and for
> this reason your communication is a *written* communication.
>
> Using a died language probably you miss this aim because you don't have
> readers: you write in Wikipedia in a died language only for you, for
> your satisfaction.
>
> You can have a small number of readers but, probably, if they must
> choose an article in old Greek, for example, or in their own language,
> they will choose the second one.

I agree with you, but you should note that the selection of articles is not
the same in all Wikipedias. It is perfectly plausible that a person who
knows, for example, Macedonian and old Greek, will be able to gather
knowledge from old Greek Wikipedia which does not exist in their own
language, in Macedonian Wikipedia. Note that this will most likely be
knowledge about old Greek, they are interested in.

As a concrete example, a person who knows Macedonian and Old church Slavonic
is right now able to read the article about Pope Alexander VI in the Old
church Slavonic Wikipedia which does not exists in Macedonian Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Sunday 13 April 2008 20:34:09 Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 10:43:37 Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> > Why you write in Wikipedia? You write in Wikipedia because other people
> > can read your texts and your articles, because your aim is the
> > widespread of knowledge.
> >
> > Perfect... an open project of Wikipedia *must* have got writers and
> > readers. Your aim is the communication and your mean is a wiki and for
> > this reason your communication is a *written* communication.
> >
> > Using a died language probably you miss this aim because you don't have
> > readers: you write in Wikipedia in a died language only for you, for
> > your satisfaction.
> >
> > You can have a small number of readers but, probably, if they must
> > choose an article in old Greek, for example, or in their own language,
> > they will choose the second one.
>
> I agree with you, but you should note that the selection of articles is not
> the same in all Wikipedias. It is perfectly plausible that a person who
> knows, for example, Macedonian and old Greek, will be able to gather
> knowledge from old Greek Wikipedia which does not exist in their own
> language, in Macedonian Wikipedia. Note that this will most likely be
> knowledge about old Greek, they are interested in.
>
> As a concrete example, a person who knows Macedonian and Old church
> Slavonic is right now able to read the article about Pope Alexander VI in
> the Old church Slavonic Wikipedia which does not exists in Macedonian
> Wikipedia.

Add to that articles about the Trans-Siberian Railway and birch bark
documents.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Sunday 13 April 2008 20:38:00 Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 20:34:09 Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > As a concrete example, a person who knows Macedonian and Old church
> > Slavonic is right now able to read the article about Pope Alexander VI in
> > the Old church Slavonic Wikipedia which does not exists in Macedonian
> > Wikipedia.
>
> Add to that articles about the Trans-Siberian Railway and birch bark
> documents.

And ZX Spectrum :)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
On Sunday 13 April 2008 12:06:34 Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> The problem is: why a person must write this information in Old Greek
> instead of in his own language? No one has got Old Greek like mother
> tongue.

Regardless of their reasons, there are such persons. Nothing is gained by not
providing them an outlet for their writing.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Very true.

As regards the necessity of using words from modern times that have no direct ancient Greek equivalents, it is always possible to use circumlocution. The Vatican, I believe, have invented a delightful Latin phrase for a computer. It's "instrumentum computatorium".

I love it.

CM


Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> From: smolensk@eunet.yu
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:59:43 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient Greek Wikipedia
>
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 12:06:34 Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> > The problem is: why a person must write this information in Old Greek
> > instead of in his own language? No one has got Old Greek like mother
> > tongue.
>
> Regardless of their reasons, there are such persons. Nothing is gained by not
> providing them an outlet for their writing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Amazing prizes every hour with Live Search Big Snap
http://www.bigsnapsearch.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Nikola Smolenski schrieb:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 12:06:34 Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>
>> The problem is: why a person must write this information in Old Greek
>> instead of in his own language? No one has got Old Greek like mother
>> tongue.
>>
>
> Regardless of their reasons, there are such persons. Nothing is gained by not
> providing them an outlet for their writing.
>
I think, this is indeed a very good point. Of course there is some
outlet for Klingon, Toki Pona or Proto-Indo-European too, but unlike
those three languages there are also potential readers. Until now, there
is only data for three countries in my tiny collection on
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Greek>, but according to
those figures there are at least 240,000 people learning Ancient Greek
_each year_. (And of course several people producing modern content like
sci-fi or comic strips in the language)

Marcus Buck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
In your answer there is the answer.

"The Vatican, I believe, have invented a delightful Latin phrase for a
computer"

This happens because there is an organization which requires to
translate modern words because the Latin is a language still used.

Ilario

Christiano Moreschi wrote:
> Very true.
>
> As regards the necessity of using words from modern times that have no direct ancient Greek equivalents, it is always possible to use circumlocution. The Vatican, I believe, have invented a delightful Latin phrase for a computer. It's "instrumentum computatorium".
>
> I love it.
>
> CM
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Christiano Moreschi hett schreven:
> Very true.
>
> As regards the necessity of using words from modern times that have no direct ancient Greek equivalents, it is always possible to use circumlocution. The Vatican, I believe, have invented a delightful Latin phrase for a computer. It's "instrumentum computatorium".
>
> I love it.
>
> CM
>
>
Or perhaps bind the creation of the wiki to a policy disallowing the
creation of neologism in-project, as long as they are not backed by
original works from outside Wikimedia projects. That means only
documenting neologism that are coined by third persons. If Jan Křesadlo
created a word for "time travel" in his ΆΣΤΡΟΝΑΥΤΙΛÍΑ, why shouldn't the
Ancient Greek Wikipedia be allowed to use that term for their
encyclopedia article on time travel too. If there's nobody, who has
written in Ancient Greek about some topics, disallow articles on it by
policy. Will work too.
Actually that's very similar to the way we work on Low Saxon Wikipedia
(and most likely other non-standard or lesser-used standard languages
too). Low Saxon lacks some terms; we try to dig into the Low Saxon
literature and unearth the existing terms coined by the writers.

Marcus Buck


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
Even so, you can still do things with Ancient Greek. I happen to own an Ancient Greek version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. A Wikipedia for this language sounds quite fun, and not massively unreasonable.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:20:46 +0200
> From: valdelli@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient Greek Wikipedia
>
> In your answer there is the answer.
>
> "The Vatican, I believe, have invented a delightful Latin phrase for a
> computer"
>
> This happens because there is an organization which requires to
> translate modern words because the Latin is a language still used.
>
> Ilario
>
> Christiano Moreschi wrote:
> > Very true.
> >
> > As regards the necessity of using words from modern times that have no direct ancient Greek equivalents, it is always possible to use circumlocution. The Vatican, I believe, have invented a delightful Latin phrase for a computer. It's "instrumentum computatorium".
> >
> > I love it.
> >
> > CM
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Win 100’s of Virgin Experience days with BigSnapSearch.com
http://www.bigsnapsearch.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
--- Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com> wrote:

> Latin is not a died language. It's the official
> language of Vatican.
>
> The internal communication and the official
> documents of the Holy See
> are in Latin.
>
> It's also a spoken language.
>
> Ilario
>

How many times,you want to tell you?

Koiné greek is the official language of Ortodoxe
church!!! and it is still in use!!! and it is
understood by modern greek people (the believers, not
just the clerics) more that latin is by the Catholics.

Note: an example of a word of the "modern latin
dictionary". the word for Shampoo: Capillarium, you
believe this word have been used out this dictionary?
in any official document? and some romance language
adopt it? no. all use some form derived of the
"anglosaxon" word

on the contrary, words that have invent for the Attic
tradition to replace "barbarian" word have been a
success ino the greek community:

computer: upologiste
internet: diadyktio

and a huge etc.

i will continue the discussion when i have time.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
koine cannot be considered a different language that attic. is just the unification of all the dialects existing in classic era. the name says it: ho koine dialektos (the common dialect)

all dialects are mutual inteligible, including koine with the others.

Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
Koiné greek is the official language of Ortodoxe
church!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Ancient Greek Wikipedia [ In reply to ]
some academic definition:

extint language: that don't have native speaker

dead language: that has stopped its evolution: the syntax, the grammar, etc don't change.

When people ask vatican, why use latin instead modern language like english and even italian? they answer them, "because latin is a dead language!, and it don't change, don't evolves! the meanings are fixed! and dead language is ideal to write about religious doctrine for its stationary situation!"

and that isn't affected due to existence of a "dictionary of modern words", the original classics words are untoucheable, for this reason they create neologism. the classics words aren't disturbed.

acording to the definition of above latin is a extint and a dead language. even if vatican create new words. because its structure remains intact. the same applies to the ancient greek. the neologism don't affect its nature, the structure and the meaning of classic words remains.

but i personally find no totally appropiated the word "dead" for those two languages that are still in use. then accadian or hittite should call "buried" language? for more precision? but is my opinion. the definition of above was made for others, not by me.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All